Think things are out of hand yet ? Kenny S wrote, "the media went on the Memorial Day holiday about a half-hour ago. About ten minutes later, 'guess who' passed a tax increase on the per-barrel rate for oil - from 8 cents to 34 cents.
The House vote was 215 to 204.
Everything is about to go up in cost..... EVERYTHING.
Your income, if you're lucky enough to still be employed or still in business, stays the same (actually decreases due to the additional expenses for everything is about to go up in cost."
They are robbing us blind. And Obama is blaming ...............Bush for the spill. Got that?
The US House of Representatives has voted to more than
quadruple a per-barrel oil tax that fills a special trust fund to pay
for damages from major spills such as the Gulf of Mexico disaster.
The
measure called for raising the eight-cent-per-barrel tax to 34 cents,
raising nearly $US12 billion ($14.1 billion) dollars over 10 years for
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which currently holds about $US1.5
billion.
The legislation, which passed by a 215-204 margin, also
aimed to raise the cap on per-incident trust fund expenditures from $US1
billion to $US5 billion.
Some analysts have warned that the
price tag for the catastrophic oil spill that resulted from the
explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling platform run by
BP could top $US14 billion.
BP is legally responsible for all cleanup costs, but is only liable for
up to $US75 million in economic damages - a cap that vanishes if the
British energy giant is found to have been negligent or engaged in
wilful misconduct.
To the extent that costs above that are not
covered by BP - which has vowed to pay all ‘‘legitimate’’ claims - up to
$US1 billion of the additional damages could come about of the trust
fund.
The legislation approved on Friday would raise that ceiling
to $US5 billion.
The Senate was expected to pass a different
version of the bill when it returns from next week’s break, meaning the
two chambers would have to agree on a compromise version to send to
President Barack Obama.
The House-passed measure’s main goal was
to extend a series of provisions aimed at battling stubbornly high US
unemployment and extend jobless benefits to late November.
Where is all the money they have already sucked out of the guts of this great nation? Where the hell is all our dough?
The full shitnik in chief says no new oil drilling. Nothing like using a crisis to aid and abet the jihad and hold America hostage to jihad oil-producing countries.
And what's with the SWAT team? Was it a terrorist attack? Sabotage to kill any oil drilling and exploration in the US? Here's the video.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Earlier today, DHS Secretary Napolitano announced that
this incident is of national significance and the Department of
Interior has announced that they will be sending SWAT teams to the Gulf
to inspect all platforms and rigs. And I have ordered the Secretaries of
Interior and Homeland Security as well as Administrator Lisa Jackson of
the Environmental Protection Agency to visit the site on Friday to
ensure that BP and the entire U.S. government is doing everything
possible, not just to respond to this incident, but also to determine
its cause."
UPDATE: Douglas commented:
OK, I'm an engineer with 23 years of practical experience. What the (expletive
imagined - feel free to substitute your own) does a SWAT team know about
inspecting oil platforms and the machinery involved? And secondly, what criminal
offence is being committed that requires a SWAT (special weapons and
tactics)team? And third, if they find an offence worthy of their presence, what
are they going to do - arrest everyone or shoot the rig and put it out of
Washington's misery?
Long overdue, I'd say. And only a radical left President could get away with
a move like this and be lauded by the left -- if this were a Republican president, the eco-animals
would be blowing up buildings and parading nekkid in da streets.
I think it's a great thing -- anything to stop funding Islamic terror. But let's understand this. He is lifting a twenty-year moratorium imposed by the paralyzing left. This is not new drilling. The good news is, when a Republican gets into the White House, he/she will be able build on it and finally take off the leftist shackles.
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration will propose allowing offshore
oil and natural-gas exploration and development in a large swath of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, after months of criticism from Republicans who
have made expanded offshore drilling a political rallying cry.
In addition, the administration plans to announce new steps to
determine how much oil and natural gas is buried off the coasts of
Middle and Southern Atlantic states, where oil-reserve estimates are
decades out of date.
The News Hub panel
discusses a controversial offshore drilling plan put forth by President
Barack Obama, a disappointing ADP jobs report and whether an epic bond
rally is coming to an end.
At the same time, Mr.
Obama's plan wouldn't allow new oil and gas development off the coasts
of Northern Atlantic states or California, whose political leaders have
long opposed offshore drilling. The administration will call off a plan
drafted by the administration of former President George W. Bush that
would have given oil companies access to Alaska's Bristol Bay, an area
teeming with wild sockeye salmon and many commercial fishing interests
concerned about the impact of drilling on their livelihoods.
I am anxious to see what egregious piece of legislation this move is tied to.
How funny to read the NY Times and the Puff Ho lauding this -- as "brave."
Bottom line, Obama wants cap and trade tax -- to the tune of an extra 600 to 700 billion a year in taxes to American families.
UPDATE: Obama also urged Congress to complete work on a climate change and energy
bill, which has remained elusive. The president met with lawmakers earlier this
month at the White House about a bill cutting emissions of pollution-causing
greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020.
UPDATE:Stuart Varney on FNC- "Obama will order environmental studies that
will take several years." More snake oil from the man
More treason from the America-hater in the White House. Oil is a strategic commodity, an element in our national security.
And you know damn well that those Russian drilling ships and oil platforms will be bristling with electronic listening antennas -- for spying on the U.S.
We have oil up to our eyeballs that we won't drill -- instead, we fund jihad and the barbaric ideology of madmen.
The Russians are coming -
to drill in our own backyard
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES (hat tip Van)
The Obama
administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental
shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to
begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts
to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon
emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.
The Obama
administration, however, views energy policy through green eyeshades. Every
aspect of its approach to energy is subordinated to radical environmental
concerns. This unprecedented lack of balance is placing offshore oil resources
off-limits. The O Force would prefer the country shift its energy production to
alternative sources, such as nuclear, solar and wind power. In theory, there's
nothing wrong with that, in the long run, assuming technology can catch up to
demand. But we have not yet reached the green utopia, we won't get there anytime
soon, and America needs more oil now.
Russia more sensibly views energy
primarily as a strategic resource.
More of Obama's utter contempt for American exceptionalism, ingenuity and innovation.
From David, Atlas reader and engineer, who emailed me on this post:
By way of background, I am currently working as a biomedical engineer
and have previously worked on various aspects of the space program, so
this is the vantage point from which I first began to notice that
Obama’s energy policies were not adding up.
Let’s look at things from the present administrations point of view:
The earth’s climate system is under a dire threat from man made
pollutants. Furthermore at some time we will reach a tipping point in
which an irreversible change will occur initiating a runaway greenhouse
effect. Under these circumstances reasonable people are called upon to
support a reduction in the use of fossil fuels: Oil, coal, and gas. So
the obvious question is where does our energy come from?
In his book ‘Hot Flat and Crowded’, Thomas Freidman answers this
question by saying we might get 5-10% from renewable sources (wind,
solar, tides, etc.), but the rest must come from, ‘innovation’. In other
words, nobody knows. Maybe if we just throw enough money at the problem
a miracle will appear.
Yet despite Thomas Freidman’s literary slight of hand (‘innovation’) to
which the current administration subscribes, there is an answer to the
clean energy problem and it’s been around for quite some time. As we are
all aware of, during the moon program beginning in 1969 samples of lunar
soil were routinely collected and brought back to earth for analysis.
One of the more remarkable findings was the discovery of large
quantities of Helium-3 (He-3) on the lunar surface which do not exist on
earth. Later on in the mid eighties someone figured out that He-3 could
possibly be used as a fuel for fusion reactors as it is highly energetic
and would produce very low levels of pollutants. In fact it’s been
estimated that one ton of He-3 could run the entire American economy for
a year. Yes, going to the moon to mine HE-3 and building fusion reactors
to use it is not something that could be implemented tomorrow, but with
enough time and financial resources it is an answer to today’s
clean energy needs, and I might add that at this time it is the only
known possible solution. What I have just written is no scientific
secret, in fact it has been rather widely discussed in the popular
science media, and is the motivating rational behind the Chinese moon
program.
So why then if Obama is so concerned with the environment has he killed
the American moon program? Here is my answer and you can take it for
whatever its worth. I believe that Obama has no interest in solving the
problems of pollution or possible global warming threats to the
environment. I believe that his interest in these affairs is purely as a
political vehicle to be used to push his agenda of creating world
governmental structures as a means of limiting the power of Western
governments in ways which he cannot possibly do at a national level.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the following comment made by Bill, ex military:
Yes the big Zero in the sky is canning our future prospects for technological superiority. The space program is in chaos with no firm programs in sight; thousands to lose jobs here in my county, with thousands of more jobs lost due to the trickle down. And as he does this, Russia today has the first flight of its fifth generation fighter plane, the Sukhoi T-50, which is designed to compete with the F-22 STEALTH fighter, which Obama has canceled. To rub more salt in our wounds, in a NATO exercise, the Eurofighter Typhoon easily trounced and destroyed our primary (and old) fighter, the F-15.
Yes, the pie-in-the-sky president is hell-bent on destroying us, and it will take years to take back, rebuild, and recover all the ground we will lose. And did I mention he wants us to rely on Chinese rockets? Yes, they will be going to the moon. And the first with a MILITARY MOON BASE will have a distinct military advantage. If we don't act now, we may never recover.
In a stunning assault on the American worker, the American economy, and the war on Islamic jihad, the Obama's radical administration is restricting drilling on Federal land.
China mines our oil off the Florida coast (thank you, Fidel!) but we can't. Every petrodollar we send to the Middle East funds the coming jihadi catastrophe. We should be choking the jihad to death, cutting off every cent. Instead, we are baring our neck and financing the silversmith.
The undoing of America and the dangerous arrogance of Obama. Think of all of those jobs! All of that oil! All of that energy! All of that wealth he is bankrupting us of!
WASHINGTON -- Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar on Wednesday announced policy changes he said would bring
more scrutiny and a greater public voice in how oil and gas leases are awarded
on public lands.....
Mr. Salazar said the changes should ensure stricter
environmental standards in oil and gas leasing while bringing more clarity to
the process for energy companies hoping to drill on public lands, mostly in
Western states.
"We don't believe we ought to be drilling anywhere and
everywhere," Mr. Salazar said at a news conference. "We believe we need a
balanced approach and a thoughtful approach" that allows development of oil and
gas leases on public lands while also protecting national parks, endangered
species and municipal watersheds.
Mr. Salazar, a Democratic former
senator from Colorado, criticized the Bush administration for what he called a
"headlong rush" to lease public lands. Early last year, Salazar suspended 60 of
77 leases in Utah approved in that administration's waning days
Feb 25, 2009 8:55 pm US/Mountain Ken
Salazar Scraps Oil-Shale Leasing By Paul Foy, AP Writer DENVER
(AP) ―
In a second reversal of the Bush administration, Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar said Wednesday he is scrapping leases for oil-shale
development on federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
Salazar
rescinded a lease offer made last month for research, development and
demonstration projects that could have led to oil-shale works on 1.9 million
acres in the three states, greatly expanding the program.
"I am
withdrawing that Jan. 14 solicitation because in my view it was a midnight
decision, and it was flawed," Salazar told reporters on a teleconference call
from Washington, D.C.
He said he also is scrapping an initial 5 percent
royalty rate on oil-shale production that "sells taxpayers short." Conventional
oil and gas production on public land produces royalties of up to 18.8
percent.
Big Oil never wanted to be here, in 4,300 feet of water far out in the Gulf
of Mexico, drilling through nearly five miles of rock.
It is an expensive way to look for oil. Chevron
Corp. is paying nearly $500,000 a day to the owner of the Clear Leader, one of
the world's newest and most powerful drilling rigs. The new well off the coast
of Louisiana will connect to a huge platform floating nearby, which cost Chevron
$650 million to build. The first phase of this oil-exploration project took more
than 10 years and cost $2.7 billion -- with no guarantee it would pay off.
Chevron came here, an hour-long helicopter ride south of New Orleans, because
so many of the places it would rather be -- big, easily tapped oil fields close
to shore -- have become off-limits. Western oil companies have been kicked out
of much of the Middle East in recent decades, had assets seized in Venezuela and
seen much of the U.S. roped off because of environmental regulations. Their
access in Iran is limited by sanctions, in Russia by curbs on foreign
investment, in Iraq by violence.
So, Chevron and other major oil companies are moving ever farther from shore
in search of oil. That quest is paying off as these companies discover
unexpectedly large quantities of oil -- oil that only they have the technology
and financial muscle to find and produce.
The woman is singular. She takes on all comers. Obama must want to go Chicago gangsta on her. He is planning something. Watch. She is sooooooooooooo on to him.
Check out her editorial in the Washington Post on Climategate and Obama's war on America. She has more testicular fortitude than all of the GOP. The left wets their pants at the mere mention of her name.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good
environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and
benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny
the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact
of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our
only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet
to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense
policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and
retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities
cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits
of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their
economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama has proposed serious cuts
in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would
require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax proposals, which will result
in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted
during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping
for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's
cap-and-tax plans, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.
In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate
change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began
a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a
cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the
climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore
science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and
sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent
scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at
the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he
gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to
bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax
proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided
legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push
for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be
wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should
boycott Copenhagen.
Talk about easy pickings. The brain takes on the bulb ... Sarah Palin on Biden's pathetic energy nonsense. Our national security, our economic health, and our independence is in the hands of dolts, marxists and leftocidals. Put that in your pipeline and smoke it.
As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an
all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other
things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent
because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office.
The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a
renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should
remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and
security needs.
The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy
development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska
pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five
votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion
barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil,
created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of
dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s
enemies by about the same amount.”
This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development
continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only
approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security
and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and
American jobs.
There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks
in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s
progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!
Great piece from Sarah over at NRO. Palin's leadership, courage, wisdom, and goodness will become increasingly clear as America's descent into darkness becomes ever more dire.
"Alternative sources of energy are
part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we
still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need
to tell them: “Yes, we can!”
Petroleum is a major part of America’s
energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?
Given that we’re
spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to
think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we
drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that
driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the
more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences.
That means we need to drill here and drill now.
We rely on petroleum
for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in
everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides
to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration,
our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per
day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd
of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In
other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t
happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll
continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest
extent.
[...]
Building an energy-independent
America will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can
never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled
by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this
massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that
could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries,
including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten
our security.
Reliance on foreign sources of energy
weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing
country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator
threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil
will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made
for local reasons can destabilize America’s energy market, since the price we
pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing
our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world
events on our economy.
In the end, energy independence is not
just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence.
It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our
energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators,
or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.
The government is, increasingly, the enemy. Imagine the jobs, the wealth, the independence, and cutting the jihad snake off at the head. There is no downside. We could easily extract that oil with minimum impact to the trees.
Why do you think they are brainwashing the children with all the "green" vomit? Going green, cleaning green, talking green, dressing green, shtupping green. Ayn Rand said back in 1970, "Ecologists predict universal doom and demand totalitarian power on the basis of arbitrary hypothesis, which sets back the possibility of such a science centuries. The ecology disgraces science. It is a political and publicity movement...........They have no right to impose their 'wisdom' by force on the rest of mankind. Those who agreed with them would be saved, those who didn't would perish. But this is an absolute: no discovery, no concept, no fact can give any individual or group the power to enforce their conclusion on others".
The green movement wants to "eliminate industry and labor-saving devices, and if the standard of living declines, that's too bad - we must preserve nature. Anyone who is against industry is against man, against life, against reason."
I don't vouch for these numbers. I don't know exactly how much we have - I do know we need to drill baby drill.
I got this from Cathi via the Mission Viejo chapter of ACT! for America.
About 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground." Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.
2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
For decades, Democrats have blocked efforts to responsibly develop this nation's energy resources, transforming vast areas of opportunity into "The No Zone." (hat tip Jim)
Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum. Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR. Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast. Democrats have blocked building oil refineries. Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production. Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
The
U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil
company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore
discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de
Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National
Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to
talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it
has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount
of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of
increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the
money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either
way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given
that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of
the largest corporations in the Americas.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. announced that the Discoverer Clear Leader -- an ultra-deepwater drillship -- has begun work in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico, allowing Chevron to expand its search for new domestic sources of energy. Chevron
is forced to develop new technology to drill in the Gulf's deepwater
since most of the US is off limits to oil companies -- thanks to Democrats. (There's video at the link.)
Barack Obama's pal George Soros, "The Black Hand," is heavily vested in PBR, Brazilian Petroleum, which
Obama loaned money to through the US Import/Export bank -drill offshore oil and
development. Which they wouldn't do here in Alaska or Utah.
1.Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.Petrobras (PBR) - 9,818,323 shares, 15.42% of the total portfolio 2.Hess Corp. (HES) - 5,123,198 shares, 10.56% of the total portfolio 3.Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.Petrobras (PBR-A) - 5,884,700 shares, 7.53% of the total portfolio 4.Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. (POT) - 1,978,053 shares, 7.06% of the total portfolio 5.Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) - 6,526,400 shares, 6.84% of the total portfolio
Note that there are two Petrobas stock numbers (PBR and PBR-A, numbers 1 & 3 listed above). The absolute corruption of the absolute power of the Soros-Obama connections.
How are we going to get off foreign oil if we can't drill our own? Why can China drill our oil off the Florida coast (thank you Fidel), but we can't? Why can Ahmadinejihad have nuclear energy but we can't? (And that's with Iran's oil reserves -- third largest in the world).
To my friends, family, acquaintances, business contacts,
As
most of you know, I work for ExxonMobil (29 yrs.) and just Wednesday
8/12/09 sat in what was the most disturbing presentation in my career.
The meeting was called by the ExxonMobil Chalmette Refinery Manager
with prior notice of the subject matter
to be presented. I am well familiar with the subject and have had my
speculation on the results were the event to occur, but this makes it
official in my mind. The presenters were Richard Igercich (Refinery
Manager) Dan Borne (President of the Gulf South Chemical Plants Association) and an ExxonMobil executive analyst on Political climate for the South Region. The subject matter was The Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill which is up for voting after August recess
of the Legislature. The Bill is a very complex one and offers
devastating results to you, me, our generations to come and every
business in America. The urgent call to all of our employees is to
contact all friends and family outside of Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama (all members of Congress and Senate here oppose the Bill), to
urge you to contact your State and U.S. Senators and Congress to tell
them to vote NO to the Waxman-Markey Bill.
Are
you prepared to live without gasoline, diesel, kerosene, jet fuel,
pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and heating oil? Can you afford
electricity, coal, natural gas at a cost
more than 100% increase per household, over what you are paying now?
That is exactly what we will do if the Waxman-Markey Bill (Cap and
Trade) if written in its present form is passed. This is not an
exaggeration or a pessimistic opinion, but the honest truth. Obama
admits it in his campaign to wean the U.S. off of Crude Oil Petroleum
products. The intent is to go "Cold Turkey" by making Crude Oil
Products beyond affordability by every American homeowner. The Tax Cost on the Oil Refineries and Chemical Plants
ability to produce the products would be more than consumers to afford
to purchase the product. Remember just last year when gasoline prices
were $4.00 plus. That will be nothing compared to the effects of this
bill.
The bill in its present form targets Oil Refineries and Chemical Plants
as the most dangerous contributors to Global Warming, which has no
scientific facts to support that accusation. It not only blames the
Refineries and Plants individually but also associates the emissions of
every car, truck, motorcycle, airplane, jet, train, farm equipment and
boat in America to the Bill. Below is the briefest excerpt of the Bill
I could find, but remember it is a short version of a very complex
issue. So please e-mail, write a personal letter and/or phone your
State and U.S. Senators, and members of Congress to vote NO to the
Waxman-Markey Bill.
Just these fields add up to 1.885 trillion barrels of oil. At 20
million barrels a day usage, that comes out to 94,250 day or 258
years. Of course, they are worth nothing if Congress says we can't use
them.
On the other hand, if we do use them (and we the people will give congress no choice), we accomplish a few things:
1. we could stop sending other countries $750 billion a year.
2. we could counter Russia’s attempt to wrap their oil fingers around Western Europe's throat
3. we could have a source of revenue to finance basic research into better batteries and solar cells
4. It gives us time to build the infrastructure required to support electric or hydrogen cars
5. It gives us time on how to deal with waste from nuclear power plants
Obamessiah: Turning
water into wine and nothing into energy
By Jan Poller
Maybe having a degree in math and physics and a life-long love of fast cars makes me not understand
the change of vision the Obamessiah is attempting to bring to us. Perhaps, I
can bring a little bit of reality to people who do not have the technical
background that I (and millions of others) have. I hate to bore you with
technical details, but it is necessary to put them in to show that Obama’s
statements are strictly political, designed to mislead people and are at odds
with reality.
Obama says that
electric cars will save us from oil and fossil fuel. Electric cars are not a
viable alternative to the current fleet of cars. Everyone knows this, which is
why Obama is making his call for massive investment in electric car research.
Never mind that private industry is investing far more than Obama is saying he
will invest.
There are
approximately 600 million cars in the world of which 243 million are in the
United States. Think about that when it comes to pollution and the use of
resources. Also think about it as an industry that employees millions of
people.
oday, we have a
really good comparison of a state-of-the-art electric car and a conventional
car. The electric car is the Tesla Roadster which is based on the Lotus Elise
SC sports car and is built in the same factory. Both cars are based on the
same aluminum frame with composite bodies. I am boring you with the
specifications to make the point that electric cars are not feasible
replacements for today’s cars. Basic physics: the more anything weighs the more
energy it takes to move it around.
Parameter
Lotus Elise
SC
Tesla
Roadster
Note
Base
Price
$55,425
$109,000
Weight
LBS
2,028
2,690
Taking out the
engine, cooling system and fuel tank, adding in 6,800 batteries and electronics
increases the weight by 662 lbs.
Engine
type
4 cylinder 1796 CC
supercharged Toyota, aluminum
Electric, 3 phase, 4
pole, liquid cooled
Regenerative engine
braking
Power
218 HP @ 8000
RPM
248 HP@13,000
RPM
Torque
156 LB FT @ 5100
RPM
211 FT lbs @ 1
RPM
Transmission
6 speed
manual
1 speed reduction
gear
Acceleration 0-60
MPH
4.4
seconds
3.9
seconds
Top speed
MPH
150
125
MPG
26
Range
227 EPA
cycle
Battery
pack
6,800 Lithium-Ion
commercially available batteries
Battery
Life
100,000
Miles
Replacement
cost
$21,000 -
$30,000
Fuel/Battery Cost for
100,000 miles with gas at $4.00 gallon
$15,384
$21,000
No figures for
electrical recharge cost. Tesla doesn’t need oil
changes.
Refill/recharge
time
5
minutes
As low as 3.5
hours
Time to drive 400
miles @ 60 MPH plus refill/recharge
Time: 6:45 Average
Speed: 59.25
Time: 10:10Average
Average Speed: 39.34
Don’t forget the cost
of additional hotel nights on long distance
trips.
Electric car
information is available. Obama and the Democrats studiously ignore exact
information and just give us “feel good” platitudes.
Obama is going to
mandate that we develop technology in a year or two that we haven’t been able to
develop in 150 years. He compares his plan to the Manhattan Project that
created the atomic bomb in just a few years. What he doesn’t realize is that
the atomic bomb had a hundred years of physics behind it including knowledge of
radioactivity and chain reactions. We do not have the same physics to produce a
battery suitable for mass production to power a car.
When you look at
energy saving articles and comments on pro-Obama web sites like www.huffingtonpost.com you find huge
support that putting a little more air in your tires is going to reduce our oil
consumption enough to affect the price of gas. You also find energy saving tips
like “turn off your computers when you aren’t using them”. Well, a typical
laptop computer as the equivalent of 6 batteries as used in the Tesla. The
Tesla Roadster with its 6800 batteries is equivalent to plugging in 1133 laptop
computers! You can make your own comparison on that.
Even if we invent the
technology tomorrow, Obama has no clue how long it takes to put a new model car
into production. Once a car is designed, it has to be tested, the tooling
produced and the factories modified. It costs at least $one billion to make the
tooling and set up the factory. It took General Motors from 2006 to 2008 to take
the new Chevrolet Camaro from concept to production using existing platforms,
engines, suspensions and other components.
Obama is forecasting
one million electric cars a year by 2015. That is not a lot of cars. In the
United States, we have a fleet of 243 million cars and we purchase about 16
million a year. One million is 4/10%. They will have no meaningful effect on
fuel usage for many, many years.
Obamessiah talks
about creating new jobs in Michigan. He is also talking about putting the oil
companies and their hundreds of thousands of employees out of business. He
wants to take all of their profits as a tax and give it to “the people”. So,
besides putting them out of the oil business, he wants to make sure that they
don’t have funds to get into a new business.
The added weight of
the batteries over the gas engine version of cars requires more energy to move
the car. If transportation uses 20 million barrels of fuel today, switching to
electric will require the energy equivalent plus the additional amount for the
additional weight. Where is this energy going to come from? Nuclear is ruled
out. Wind off Cape Cod is a No No. We can’t use coal,
either.
All this energy is
going to come from things not yet invented. Obama will need to have congress
repeal or change the laws of physics to accomplish his implied
goals.
Buy it if you want,
but not a single implied goal of his can be met even if we have a battery life
breakthrough tomorrow.
Last night, I watched
an episode of “Ice Road Truckers” on the History Channel. This show is about
blue collar truck drivers delivering supplies and equipment of frozen lakes,
rivers and Barents Sea. Our “liberal” and “progressive” intellectuals take
pride in not watching such shows on TV because they aren’t intellectually
stimulating, they aren’t Meet the Press or Chris Mathews.
There is much to
learn from this show and what we learn is the self-imposed ignorance the hard
left and extreme Greenies. These truckers are Canadian. They are hauling
supplies and equipment to the far north of Canada to support energy companies
and diamond mines. They haul out waste. They haul out dirty snow. They leave
a site as clean as when they got there.
Last night’s episode
showed scientists camped out on ice over open water researching the capture of
methane from sea-floor methane hydrates. They showed that it works. In that
part of the arctic, there are over a trillion cubic feet of
methane.
We Americans are not
allowed to do this research. The Canadians and the rest of the world can. We
Americans are not allowed to drill for oil in the frozen north. The Canadians
and the rest of the world can. We Americans are not allowed to drill far off the
coasts. The Norwegians and English are free to drill in the North Sea. We, in
Virginia, are not allowed to study uranium deposits – despite having the
7th largest know deposit at 110 million pounds. Africans, Canadian
and Australians are free to do so. We Americans are not allowed to build new
nuclear power plants. The rest of the world is.
Do we hear any of the
Environmentalists complain about what any other country is doing? Absolutely
not! The same people who decry American nuclear power plants, who stop us from
building more are the very same people who strongly support Iran’s nuclear power
program.
What is going on
here?
Obama and the
Democrats keep saying, “We can’t drill our way out of the problem”. That is
true when you realize what they think the problem is. It isn’t high energy
prices: they want us to pay even more. Obama has said so
himself.
No, “The Problem” is
that Americans live too well and use to much of the worlds resources.
How do we solve “The
Problem”? We solve it by restricting the use of energy and raw materials. We
reduce our standard of living to that of, say, Europe. This is not about per
capita GDP. This is about how we actually live. Watch “International House
Hunting” on HG-TV (House and Garden TV – another non-intellectual show that
isn’t watched by the hard left intellectuals). See what housing is like in
London, Glasgow, Paris, Portugal, Italy and Buenos Aires and compare it to our
housing. Compare kitchens and bathrooms. Compare our 15 CU FT refrigerators
and Freezers to an under-counter refrigerator.
The hard left wants
us to be a less powerful, less industrialized poorer nation. They want us to
give up our cars for buses. They want us to wash our dishes by hand and dry our
clothes in the wind. They want US, not them. Al Gore isn’t giving up his big
house, his SUV, his private airplane flights, his new boat to live the way he
wants US to live.
Obama wants to take
Exxon-Mobile’s profits and give them away. Has he set an example by giving away
his riches?
The lefties of the
world want to diminish the power of the United States. Then they want to
destroy the power of Western civilization. They want to destroy Capitalism.
They want absolute equality for all. Except for the leaders, of course... Just
like Communist China and Communist Russia.
Even Ayn Rand would not have gone this far in depicting the evil workings of the moochers, looters and destroyers. It would have been too unbelievable.
Obama is manufacturing crises from one day to the next. Hey, it's how to ram his marxist agenda through a capitalistic state.
To my friends, family, acquaintances, business contacts,
As most of you know, I work for ExxonMobil (29 yrs.) and just Wednesday 8/12/09 sat in what was the most disturbing presentation in my career. The meeting was called by the ExxonMobil Chalmette Refinery Manager with prior notice of the subject matter to be presented. I am well familiar with the subject and have had my speculation on the results were the event to occur, but this makes it official in my mind. The presenters were Richard Igercich (Refinery Manager) Dan Borne (President of the Gulf South Chemical Plants Association) and an ExxonMobil executive analyst on Political climate for the South Region. The subject matter was The Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill which is up for voting after August recess of the Legislature. The Bill is a very complex one and offers devastating results to you, me, our generations to come and every business in America. The urgent call to all of our employees is to contact all friends and family outside of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (all members of Congress and Senate here oppose the Bill), to urge you to contact your State and U.S. Senators and Congress to tell them to vote NO to the Waxman-Markey Bill.
Are you prepared to live without gasoline, diesel, kerosene, jet fuel, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and heating oil? Can you afford electricity, coal, natural gas at a cost more than 100% increase per household, over what you are paying now? That is exactly what we will do if the Waxman-Markey Bill (Cap and Trade) if written in its present form is passed. This is not an exaggeration or a pessimistic opinion, but the honest truth. Obama admits it in his campaign to wean the U.S. off of Crude Oil Petroleum products. The intent is to go "Cold Turkey" by making Crude Oil Products beyond affordability by every American homeowner. The Tax Cost on the Oil Refineries and Chemical Plants ability to produce the products would be more than consumers to afford to purchase the product. Remember just last year when gasoline prices were $4.00 plus. That will be nothing compared to the effects of this bill.
The bill in its present form targets Oil Refineries and Chemical Plants as the most dangerous contributors to Global Warming, which has no scientific facts to support that accusation. It not only blames the Refineries and Plants individually but also associates the emissions of every car, truck, motorcycle, airplane, jet, train, farm equipment and boat in America to the Bill. Below is the briefest excerpt of the Bill I could find, but remember it is a short version of a very complex issue. So please e-mail, write a personal letter and/or phone your State and U.S. Senators, and members of Congress to vote NO to the Waxman-Markey Bill.
Sincerely,
Bob
Testimony before
The House and Senate Western Caucus
July 30, 2009
My name is Ben Lieberman. I am the Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.
I would like to thank the House and Senate Western Caucus for the privilege of participating in today's hearing. I'll be discussing the costs of the cap-and-trade approach to addressing global warming and The Heritage Foundation's economic analysis of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman-Markey). As you know, the House narrowly passed this bill, which is similar to, but has more stringent targets and timetables than, the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill that was rejected by the Senate last June.
It is clear that cap and trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates--and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted--the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to used less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met.
The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small business owners, farmers and ranchers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway.
What are those costs? According to an analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, an updated version of which will be out shortly, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.
Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost-boosting global-warming measures like Waxman-Markey.
Since farming is energy-intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food exporting nations would have no comparable energy price-raising measures in place.
Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.
It should also be noted that the costs are not distributed evenly. Low-income households spend a disproportionate share of their incomes on energy, and thus would be hit harder than average by Waxman-Markey. Of course, the bill has provisions to give back some revenues to low-income households, but it is likely that these rebates will amount only to some portion of each dollar that was taken away from them in the first place in the form of higher energy costs and higher costs for other goods and services. Waxman-Markey also disproportionately burdens those states, especially in the Midwest and South, that still have a substantial number of manufacturing jobs to lose, as well as those that rely more heavily than others on coal for electric generation. In addition, because the bill raises energy costs, it hurts rural America much more than urban America. Rural Americans, farmers and non-farmers, spend an average of 58 percent more on energy as a percentage of income than their urban counterparts, and those costs would go up.
The disproportionate burdens affect the West. Coal mining will be very hard-hit, so Montana and Wyoming and other coal-producing states will see this important sector of their economies shrink significantly. Western oil and natural gas producers will face higher costs as well. The promise of oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming will never be realized under Waxman-Markey. As I mentioned, agriculture is hard-hit, and that particularly includes things common in parts of the West that are not well positioned to partially defray their costs by availing themselves of offsets, like ranching on federal lands, fruits and vegetables, and potatoes. And of course the long distances rural Westerners have to drive in the course of each day means that gasoline and diesel price increases hurt them more than other Americans.
In conclusion, it is not surprising that support for Waxman-Markey is heaviest in those parts of the country, the urban centers in the West Coast and Northeast, that are least harmed by it. Even there, the economic damage would be bad enough, but the citizens in the rest of the country and their representatives, and especially those who represent the rural West, should really be asking many tough questions about the economic impact of cap and trade.
A shovel ready project canceled? Can you believe this? These democrats are poison!! How many jobs lost? Where is the accountability? They are tearing through our hard earned money, destroying our economy - for what? Paying off Obama's operatives? This is nuts!
Where does this idiot think we get our energy from??
Company says it suspends work on Ohio uranium plant because US govt. denied loan guarantee
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A company says it's suspending construction on a uranium enrichment plant in southern Ohio because the federal government would not grant a $2 billion loan guarantee.
In a statement, USEC Inc. CEO John Welch said Tuesday that the Bethesda, Md.-based company was advised of the U.S. Department of Energy's decision, which he described as shocking and disappointing.
USEC has been developing the American Centrifuge project in Piketon, about 65 miles south of Columbus, at the site of a former gaseous diffusion plant that enriched uranium during the Cold War. The company says the project would have created thousands of jobs.
USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said Tuesday that the company would try to find other financing, though she said that's tough in the current economy .
July 28 (Bloomberg) -- USEC Inc. fell as much as 39 percent in early trading after the U.S. Department of Energy denied a loan guarantee to complete construction of the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio.
Symbol is USU
USEC dropped $2.38, or 38 percent, to $3.81 at 7:46 a.m. in trading before the New York Stock Exchange opened.
“We are shocked and disappointed by DOE’s decision,’’ Chief Executive Officer John K. Welch said in a statement. “The American Centrifuge met the original intent of the loan guarantee program in that it would have used an innovative, but proven, technology, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and created thousands of immediate jobs across the United States.”
Last Updated: July 28, 2009 07:50 EDT
FLASHBACK! 2005 -- Makes you wonder if there will be any anti-destroy-the-economy protests at the Obamas' 20 million house rental on Martha's Vineyard next week, as there were when the Bushes went to Crawford.
I arrived last night in Waco, Texas. I’m staying about half an hour outside
Crawford, where anti-war protesters have gathered and remain even in absence of
Cindy Sheehan. I made the drive out to the first protest site, where
Sheehan’s old tent remains in a ditch, as did several dozen protesters.
What surprised me, and what has received almost no coverage, where the
counter-protesters gathered across the street in support of U.S. troops and
President Bush.
I continued down the dusty road several miles before arriving at the new,
main protest site. What I saw there was a sight to behold. The protesters have
erected giant tents that stand several stories high. Inside were hundreds of
protesters gathered around a stage where organizers were preparing to give a
speech and a band off-stage was preparing to play music:
Alongside
the road, dozens of cars were lined-up making the already narrow path more
difficult to traverse. It was obvious anti-Bush protesters had truly come from
across the nation to attend. I saw plates from New York, Florida, Washington
State, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, Maine, Maryland, California and
others.
As I drove
slowly along the roadside taking pictures, one protester beckoned, “Why don’t
you come inside, we have food?” Even as they walked past several hundred
miniature erected gravesites for fallen soldiers, most protesters seemed in a
jovial mood. Their campsite is erected quite literally next to the secret
service checkpoint that leads up a road approximately one mile from President
Bush’s ranch.
The
Daily Truth about the Democrats’ National Energy Tax
Truth
#13: Higher Energy Rates to Pay for Bike Paths in
Senegal
The
federal government will provide free carbon emission allowances to foreign
governments, NGOs or private entities, who would in turn sell these allowances
to utility companies and use the proceeds from the sales to support projects in
developing countries. It is expected that entities like domestic utility
companies will raise their rates on American consumers to fund the purchase of
these carbon emission allowances. (H.R. 2454, Sec. 441, p.
1212)
What
this means for Americans Under the Democrats’ national energy tax,
entities like utility companies will spend an estimated $58 billion in the year
2020 alone to purchase carbon emission allowances that will go to fund
international projects.These companies
will collect this money through higher energy costs imposed on
American families and businesses.That
money will be used to support international clean technology programs.USAID’s international clean energy technology
activities have included projects
like the integrated bus rapid transit and bike path plan in Senegal, and the
development of a hydrogen rickshaw in
India.>With
14.7 million American workers unemployed, raising electricity prices on American
households to fund bike paths overseas is the height of absurdity.
NOTE: To see other
truths about the Democrats’ plan for a national energy tax, click here.
The road to hell is paved with "hope" and "change"! (from Mike Pence)
The Daily Truth about the Democrats’ National Energy Tax
Creates the Largest Welfare Program in Our Nation’s History
What the bill does:
The bill (H.R. 2454) requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide monthly cash payments, or “energy stamps”, to low-income households for their estimated “loss in their purchasing power” resulting from the Democrats’ national energy tax. The bill establishes a national standard of eligibility (covering everyone under 150% of the poverty line). Energy stamps would reach an estimated 65 million individuals (about 20 percent of all US residents) – making it a larger program than welfare, food stamps, or even Medicaid. (H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Sec. 431, p. 1193)
What this means for Americans:
If, as Democrats claim, their national energy tax will create millions of well-paying “green jobs,” then why do we need to create a new energy welfare program? The Democrats’ national energy tax plan will raise energy costs on all Americans. Democrats know this so they created the largest welfare program in American history to compensate for those increased costs. Despite the massive scope of this program, more than 200 million Americans will not receive benefits, just energy tax hikes without direct
Obama wants control of health care (which is irreversible, irrevocable), education and energy.
UPDATE: It was announced today that we lost another half a million jobs last month, but Obama told us today at his daily dear leader mind-f**k press conference that it's a "sign of recovery," because we lost 750,000 the month before. So this is better. Get it? Remember how "terrible" unemployment was under Bush -- 5% -- and the media hand-wringing, caterwauling and howling at the moon was intolerable.
Eight traitors to the principles of the Republican party handed the Democrat-communists a victory which may lead to the greatest tax increases and most far-reaching centralized (dictatorship) control over every aspect of American life.
(hat tip TC)
The vote was 219 - 212. The 8 RINO votes would have stopped this marxist-transnationalist legislation in its tracks.
On a good note - 43 democrats rejected the insanity.
The
Democrats in the House of Representatives have voted to destroy the
United States economy unilaterally. The vote was 220-203. 5 people did
not vote. (As of 7:15 p.m.)
The vote was extremely close. 8 Republicans voted yes. 43 Democrats voted no.
Your persistent phone calls kept the margin very narrow and now make it extremely difficult to pass the Senate.
We must keep up the pressure in the Senate. We also now have a lot
of momentum going into the healthcare fight. Democrats cannot expect to
hold the same economy destroying coalition together.
Also, several Democrats are now dead men walking. We will clean their clocks next year.
UPDATED: Both James Inhofe and Harry Reid predict the legislation is dead in the Senate.
Republicans voting yes:
Congressman Mary Bono, California 202-225-5330 Congressman Mike
Castle,Delaware 202-225-4165 Congressman Mark Kirk Illinois 202-225-4835 Congressman Frank Lobiondo
New Jersey
202-225-6572 Congressman Leonard Lance New Jersey 202-225-5361 Congressman John McHugh
New York 202-225-4611 Congressman Dave Reichert Washington State 202-225-7761 Congressman Chris
Smith Trenton New Jersey 202-225-3765
Daryl wrote me earlier:
Did our government
surrender to Beijing without telling us?
If this bill passes, it will have the
effect on America the Versailles Treaty had on Germany.
De-industrialization.
We are going to receive a double-whammy
because the treaty exempts the worst polluters, the ChiComs, from mandatory
emission controls, but WE get to help foot the bill for whatever pollution
controls the despots in Beijing decide to deploy.
Our manufacturers are mandated to pay for
their own investments in pollution control technology and, indirectly through
higher taxes for foreign aid, for THEIRS.
How come the world's biggest debtor nation
has to raise taxes and borrow more money to pay for aid to the biggest creditor
nation?
Naturally, this will only further
the transfer of manufacturing to China.
After the greenback goes the way of the
Deutschmark, the middle class has lost its savings to hyper-inflation, and all
our non-government jobs have gone to China, how will we avoid the rise of an
American Hitler?
"You are a wonderful fighter for liberty" -- Bat Ye'or
"Well, I read Atlas Shrugs, Power Line, National Review blogs" ........ "Atlas Shrugs breaks more news than dozens of liberal blogs combined." ...... ... Ambassador John Bolton
"I'm a fan!" - Mark Steyn
"Fearless, intelligent, beautiful --- Pamela Geller wears her Supergirl
costume well."
"Pamela Geller is a dynamo of energy and
a paragon of courage and fearlessness.
--Robert Spencer, JihadWatch in his book Stealth Jihad
"You do great work. You are a hero". -- Geert Wilders, Dutch MP
"You are my hero!" -- Wafa Sultan, Former Muslim, Author human rights activist
"Hot female host with a good sense of humor based in NYC? I nominate Pamela."-- Michelle Malkin
"An American and Jewish national treasure." -- Steven Goldberg, National Vice Chair, ZOA
"A nationally recognized authority on the threat of radical Islam" -- Rep. Steven King (R-IA)
Pamela is one of the nation's most vigorous opponents of bigoted violence.- John Hinderaker, Powerline
" "A beautiful and articulate speaker and writer who has risen to prominence in the US for her steadfast commitment to exposing the deadly pathologies of Jew hatred, misogyny and other prejudices inherent to jihadist ideology." -- Caroline Glick" -- Caroline Glick
"I honestly think that one day historians will write about the defense of Western values and virtues in the 21st Century and speak of heroes. And one will be Pamela Geller." Michael Coren, TV host, Sun TV
"I'm cheering you on!" -- Amanda Carpenter
"Great site," Dick Morris
"A brash New Yorker and an irrepressible firebrand" -- Robert Tracinski, The Freedom Fighter's Journal and The Intellectual Activist
"Indeed, some of Israel's best friends and most articulate defenders can be found in the blogosphere .... Atlas Shrugs, [et al] all provide a refreshing alternative to the moral relativism and politically correct anti-Israel blather of the media. Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post
"She does more in one week than most of us do in a frickin' lifetime -- Pamela Geller!" -- Jaz McKay, Talk Radio KNZR
"Influential online fanatic" --- Max Blumenthal, Writer, Al Jazeera and The Nation
"I never go to MSM for news. Atlas is where I go. I am amazed at all that is happening, that only Atlas readers know about"". --- JCL, Atlas reader
"The heroine of the right wing blogosphere. 'We’re all Pamela Geller now!'” -- Charles Johnson, mental patient
“Geller had joined Stop the Madrassa and blogged often about the matter on her website, Atlas Shrugs. Blessed with sultry Hollywood sex appeal and a sassy, scythe-like wit — a personable Ann Coulter and articulate Sarah Palin rolled into one — Geller would ride the Park51 project protest to superstardom.”
- Southern Poverty Law Center
"Pamela Geller is one of the most polarizing women in the country."
Village Voice
"Pamela Geller's writings, rallies and television appearances have both offended and inspired, transforming Ms. Geller from an Internet obscurity, who once videotaped herself in a bikini as she denounced “Islamofascism,” into a media commodity who has been profiled on “60 Minutes” and whose phraseology has been adopted by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin." The New York Times
"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world, these people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas." Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project
"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body." Ayn Rand
Disclaimer: All comments are welcome on this website but the views expressed and any links provided in the comment sections are the personal views of individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect my views.
Thank you for visiting.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use” and legitimately infringes on yours or your clients copyright I may be contacted concerning copyright matters at:
If you require a courier address please send an email and I will provide you with the required information.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation I will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question. It is my strict policy to disable access to accounts of repeat copyright violators. I will also ban the IP address of repeat offenders from future posting on this website with or without a registered account.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. AtlasShrugs.com makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
—–
DON’T BREAK THE LAW!
—–
Other than that you can do / say whatever you want on this forum.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
